RE: [higgins-dev] Proposed Version 1: Higgins based LDAP OWL ontology

["Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As I mentioned on #higgins channel to Jim just now, at the least we'll have
to list the jar dependencies so folks can go get them. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Doman
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:13 PM
> To: higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Mark.Wahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [higgins-dev] Proposed Version 1: Higgins based LDAP OWL
> ontology
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Yeah, we're contributing our LDAP context provider to the Higgins project.
> I have a few bandit references in namespaces, etc. that I'll change and
> I'll pull the EPL comment block into my source files.  Currently, my
> source is in the bandit CVS repository and I can maintain day-to-day
> changes there and have Jim make periodic updates to the code in the
> Higgins repository unless there is another place you'd like to have
> reference context provider implementations.
> 
> Any other logistics we need to cover?
> 
> -Tom
> 
> >>> "Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx> 10/1/2006 10:03 AM >>>
> I'll discuss this with my manager (Pat) and our DE (Dale), et. al. on
> Monday.  I expect it'd be fine to be part of Higgins under EPL but at the
> very least, would be under Bandit as ... LGPL or GPL ... can't remember
> which we ended up with.  Anyway, after we discuss it, I'll want to discuss
> logistics with you.  For example, do we want an entire reference context
> provider implementation for LDAP under Higgins or just the LDAP ontology
> generator (which is behind my IContext.getSchema() implementation)?
> 
> -Tom
> 
> >>> "Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 9/30/2006 7:26 AM >>>
> My personal hope is that this particular piece of work would be part of
> Higgins under EPL as a Novell IP contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> -Paul
> 
> 
> 
>   _____
> 
> From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anthony Nadalin
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 5:15 PM
> To: Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions
> Cc: Mark.Wahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [higgins-dev] Proposed Version 1: Higgins based LDAP OWL
> ontology
> 
> 
> 
> So is the intent for this to become part of Higgins ? or is this something
> that Higgins would have to pick up from Bandit ?
> 
> Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
> Inactive hide details for "Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx>"Tom Doman"
> <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 09/29/2006 03:49 PM
> 
> 
> Please respond to
> "Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions"
> <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To
> 
> 
> <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <Mark.Wahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subject
> 
> 
> [higgins-dev] Proposed Version 1: Higgins based LDAP OWL ontology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attached is what we (Jim and I) are proposing a Higgins based LDAP OWL
> ontology would look like.  At least, we believe this is complete enough to
> call "version 1".  Again, this is generated OWL from our Bandit Higgins
> LDAP
> Context Provider.  Please review and provide any feedback you have.  Jim
> and
> I have come to agreement and hopefully this is in line with "Person"
> example
> Paul is coming out with today.  If not, we'll tweak it accordingly.
> 
> The biggest change between this and any previous version (ie.
> testLDAP.owl)
> you may have seen is the inclusion of Datatype properties that represent
> LDAP syntaxes and their subsequent linkage with attributes.  Currently,
> they
> all end up being simple data types but this work will allow us to create
> complex data types for either LDAP context specific or Higgins common
> complex types.  It also causes the LDAP syntaxes used for each attribute
> value to be explicitly called out.  SemanticWorks provides a nice
> graphical
> view of what we've defined.
> 
> Besides the two small items I mentioned earlier, there is one additional
> reason the attached ontology is not OWL-DL, namely, no
> "&higgins;integerSimpleValue".  I believe Paul's adding definitions for at
> least the basic types soon.
> 
> I'll wait for a little feedback from Higgins participants and then I'll
> propose this to the Identity Schemas group for them to tear apart.
> 
> Tom Doman
> Novell Inc.
> 
> (See attached file:
> genHigginsLDAP0.1.0.owl)_______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
> _______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev